Peter Eisentraut said: > Am Donnerstag, 22. April 2004 13:17 schrieb John Sidney-Woollett: > You get your strings sorted in binary order of the UTF-8 encoding, which > is probably not very interesting, but it's possible.
Agreed. >> Is it also true that if LC_COLLATE != 'C' that indexes cannot be used >> for LIKE comparisons (and is this also true for en_US.iso885915)? > No, see <http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.4/static/indexes-opclass.html>. I wish I understood what this page actually was trying to say. Is it saying that varchar_pattern_ops sorts according to the 'C' locale regardless of LC_COLLATE, and that varchar_ops sorts according to the current value of LC_COLLATE? > This setup will result in UTF-8 characters being sorted by the system > thinking > they are actually ISO-8859-15 characters. So the result will be random at > best. Actually the LC_COLLATE is currently 'C' not as I reported ISO-8859-1. What would be a correct LC_COLLATE value for my database if we want to primarily service ISO-8859-1, but allow for cyrillic/chinese/japanese/korean characters too and have them sorting and indexing correctly? We are building a multilanguage website... ls /usr/share/locale produces: ca de [EMAIL PROTECTED] en_SE fi hr ko no sk zh_TW cs el en_GB en_US fr it locale.alias pl sv da en [EMAIL PROTECTED] es gl ja nl pt_BR tr Thanks for anymore info. John Sidney-Woollett ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
